If you are one who does NOT want to create a sense of superiority in your AAP accepted child

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is true that we live in a highly educated area and compared to the national average there are more smart kids. That said, if you ask any teacher or educator who has been around here awhile they will tell you that there are many kids getting into the program now who would not have gotten in (and whose parents wouldn't have pushed for it) back when the program was more geared to "gifted" students. The whole reason the GT program was created is that research has shown time and again that these students learn differently and FCPS needed to bus them to centers to find a critical mass.

Todays AAP program is hard to justify for the following reasons:

1. Students can be high-achieving, or advanced because of what they've been exposed to without being gifted. Do these kids really learn differently and need a separate program?
2. With 40% of the second grade class making the cut for AAP in some schools, can anyone argue in good faith that these students need to be bused to a center to find a critical mass of their intellectual peers?


I honestly don't know how FCPS and so many parents on this forum can justify this bloated program with a straight face.

My kid was attending a Title I school with no level 4 services. No way were 40 % found eligible.

[Anonymous]

Again, the reason that FCPS hasn't tightened the admittance standards is exactly because the Title I school kids and certain minorities (Black and Hispanic) would have an even more difficult time getting into the centers. The TJ admissions data helps to tell this story. Short of the county adjusting the admissions criteria by cluster, the higher SES schools are going to continue to send more students to level IV programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is true that we live in a highly educated area and compared to the national average there are more smart kids. That said, if you ask any teacher or educator who has been around here awhile they will tell you that there are many kids getting into the program now who would not have gotten in (and whose parents wouldn't have pushed for it) back when the program was more geared to "gifted" students. The whole reason the GT program was created is that research has shown time and again that these students learn differently and FCPS needed to bus them to centers to find a critical mass.

Todays AAP program is hard to justify for the following reasons:

1. Students can be high-achieving, or advanced because of what they've been exposed to without being gifted. Do these kids really learn differently and need a separate program?
2. With 40% of the second grade class making the cut for AAP in some schools, can anyone argue in good faith that these students need to be bused to a center to find a critical mass of their intellectual peers?


I honestly don't know how FCPS and so many parents on this forum can justify this bloated program with a straight face.

My kid was attending a Title I school with no level 4 services. No way were 40 % found eligible.

That's why I said "some" schools. Most people are well aware that there are a number of FCPS schools in lower income areas that only send a small percentage of students to AAP. Certainly, those kids need and should be bused to centers since they lack a critical mass of academic peers at their base school. But in places like McLean and Vienna where there are more than enough "advanced" kids in most schools, the continued insistence that these students must have the option of a center is ridiculous and certainly not in the spirit of the original regulations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again, the reason that FCPS hasn't tightened the admittance standards is exactly because the Title I school kids and certain minorities (Black and Hispanic) would have an even more difficult time getting into the centers. The TJ admissions data helps to tell this story. Short of the county adjusting the admissions criteria by cluster, the higher SES schools are going to continue to send more students to level IV programs.

Asians and Whites do score better than other racial groups. Asians outperform all on quantitative and nonverbal tests. It's not racism to state this, but a statistical reality. Here's some data from another school district: https://infosvcweb.madison.k12.wi.us/files/infosvc/2013-2-1%20CogAT%20Identification%20and%20Distributions.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is true that we live in a highly educated area and compared to the national average there are more smart kids. That said, if you ask any teacher or educator who has been around here awhile they will tell you that there are many kids getting into the program now who would not have gotten in (and whose parents wouldn't have pushed for it) back when the program was more geared to "gifted" students. The whole reason the GT program was created is that research has shown time and again that these students learn differently and FCPS needed to bus them to centers to find a critical mass.

Todays AAP program is hard to justify for the following reasons:

1. Students can be high-achieving, or advanced because of what they've been exposed to without being gifted. Do these kids really learn differently and need a separate program?
2. With 40% of the second grade class making the cut for AAP in some schools, can anyone argue in good faith that these students need to be bused to a center to find a critical mass of their intellectual peers?


I honestly don't know how FCPS and so many parents on this forum can justify this bloated program with a straight face.

My kid was attending a Title I school with no level 4 services. No way were 40 % found eligible.

That's why I said "some" schools. Most people are well aware that there are a number of FCPS schools in lower income areas that only send a small percentage of students to AAP. Certainly, those kids need and should be bused to centers since they lack a critical mass of academic peers at their base school. But in places like McLean and Vienna where there are more than enough "advanced" kids in most schools, the continued insistence that these students must have the option of a center is ridiculous and certainly not in the spirit of the original regulations.

So true. And even the kids in Title 1 schools who are eligible don't need to be bused to a center; why not just to a nearby elementary school that does offer LLIV? The "need" for center schools and the busing that goes along with it is LONG past.

[Anonymous]

Isn't that what a center is? A school that 2-3 other schools feed into for Level 4 services?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't that what a center is? A school that 2-3 other schools feed into for Level 4 services?

The point is that there are only a few areas in FxCo where kids would even "need" to be bused to a different school. The center model in most of FCPS, especially the western areas (Great Falls, McLean, Vienna, etc.) is completely unnecessary as all of those schools have tons of AAP kids within the base schools. Busing is redundant and wasteful.

[Anonymous]

True, but be prepared for boundary shifts if they do away with the centers in those areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't that what a center is? A school that 2-3 other schools feed into for Level 4 services?

Our center has about 10 schools feeding into it! It's surprising to me how different things are across the county! We all post on here based on our experiences, but those experiences are not at all the same! Interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:True, but be prepared for boundary shifts if they do away with the centers in those areas.

Boundary shifts would make a whole lot more sense than the current center schools. We have 8 schools (and possibly more) feeding into our center, and every one has their own LLIV program. Why these kids are even given the option to switch schools is beyond me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:True, but be prepared for boundary shifts if they do away with the centers in those areas.

Boundary shifts would make a whole lot more sense than the current center schools. We have 8 schools (and possibly more) feeding into our center, and every one has their own LLIV program. Why these kids are even given the option to switch schools is beyond me.

This is beyond crazy unless the numbers at the local LLIV are so low that they don't make sense. What school is this?

[Anonymous]

Not that PP, but many centers have 5+ schools feeding in (not including the base school itself):

Springfield Estates - 13
Belvedere - 9
Stratford Landing - 7
Mantua - 7
Canterbury Woods - 6
Greenbriar West - 6
Keene Mill - 6
Lorton Station - 6

I don't understand what's going on at Haycock and Colvin Run with the new feeder system, so I didn't include them.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps centers with multiple schools feeding into them make the most sense because it would seem to suggest that a critical mass can't be found at any of these schools but there aren't enough kids in a few to fill a center.

I think the centers fed by 2 or 3 schools would seem more suspect, particularly if any of those schools would have a critical mass of AAP kids on their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:True, but be prepared for boundary shifts if they do away with the centers in those areas.

Boundary shifts would make a whole lot more sense than the current center schools. We have 8 schools (and possibly more) feeding into our center, and every one has their own LLIV program. Why these kids are even given the option to switch schools is beyond me.

I know that Haycock has several school that fed into it that have LLIV, but some like Kent Gardens and Franklin Sherman are still fledglings. I agree that no one needs to be bussed from Chesterbrook to Haycock- but there are not that many of those anyway.